Defamation of a Public Figure vs. Private Figure Explained

In the eyes of the law, there are two types of people: public figures and private figures. As you might expect, the legal definition of each kind of person is quite different. Public figures are celebrities or high-profile individuals who have voluntarily thrust themselves into the public spotlight. On the other hand, private figures are everyday citizens who have not voluntarily sought publicity.

So, what does this mean for defamation cases? Well, the legal standard for defamation is different for public figures than for private figures. In this blog post, we will explore the difference between the defamation of a public figure and a confidential figure.

What is defamation?

It is considered defamation when one party makes a false statement about another that causes harm. Defamation can be in the form of libel, written defamation, slander, or oral defamation. The incorrect information must be published or spoken to a third party for it to be considered defamation. Simply making a false statement to the person you are slandering is not enough.

There are two types of defamation: libel and slander. Libel is when false statements are made in writing, such as in a blog post or news article. Slander is when false statements are made orally, such as in conversations or on the radio.

To prove defamation, the plaintiff must show that the defendant made a false statement about them that was published or spoken to a third party. The plaintiff must also show that they suffered harm because of the false statement. For example, if the incorrect information caused the plaintiff to lose his job or suffer financial damages, he would have grounds for a defamation lawsuit.

The difference between public and private figures

Concerning defamation, there is a significant distinction between public and private figures. This is because public figures have voluntarily put themselves in the public spotlight and therefore have a lower threshold for proving defamation. In contrast, private figures must show that the defendant acted with malice or negligence to win a defamation claim.

Public figures can be either all-purpose or limited-purpose. An all-purpose public figure has achieved such pervasive fame or notoriety that they become a household name. Limited-purpose public figures have not attained this same fame but have voluntarily injected themselves into public controversy.

In either case, public figures must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice – that is, with the knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard for the truth. This higher standard exists because public figures have chosen to put themselves in the public eye and, therefore, should expect greater scrutiny.

Private figures, on the other hand, need only prove that the defendant was negligent – that is, they failed to exercise reasonable care in verifying the accuracy of their statements. This lower standard exists because private individuals have not chosen to place themselves in the public spotlight and should not be subject to the same level of scrutiny.

Defamation of a public figure vs. a private figure

There are two types of defamation: libel (written) and slander (spoken). When it comes to public figures, they must prove that the person who made the statement did so with "actual malice." This means that the person making the statement knew it was false or made it with reckless disregard for the truth. Private figures only have to prove that the information was incorrect and caused damage.

How to prove defamation

Regarding defamation, there are two types of figures: public and private. The difference between the two is crucial because it will affect the proof required to win a defamation case. 

A public figure has voluntarily put themselves in the public eye. This could be a politician, celebrity, or anyone who has chosen to make their life an open book. Because they have chosen to put themselves in the public eye, they have also decided to give up some privacy rights.

To win a defamation case against a public figure, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false statement with "actual malice." Actual malice means that the defendant either knew that their information was incorrect or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true or not. 

The private figure has not voluntarily put themselves in the public eye. This includes most people who have yet to seek out publicity for themselves. Private figures are entitled to more privacy than public figures and do not have to prove actual malice to win a defamation case.

What are the damages for defamation?

As a general rule, the damages for defamation are intended to compensate the plaintiff for any injury to their reputation. In some cases, however, the court may award punitive damages designed to punish the defendant and deter others from engaging in similar conduct.

To recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false statement about them that was published to a third party. The plaintiff must also show that they suffered some harm due to the publication.

If the plaintiff can prove these elements, the damages will depend on whether the plaintiff is considered a public or private figure. Public figures have a higher burden of proof because they are assumed to have voluntarily exposed themselves to public scrutiny. As such, they must show that the defendant acted with actual malice, which means that the defendant either knew that the statement was false or recklessly disregarded its truth or falsity.

Private figures only need to prove that the defendant was negligent in making the false statement. This means that the defendant did not take reasonable care to ensure that the information was accurate before publishing it.

The damages also depend on whether the defamation is considered libel or slander. Libel is a written defamatory statement, while slander is an oral defamatory statement. Slander is generally less harmful than libel because it is transitory and can be easily forgotten.

Conclusion

In conclusion, defamation of a public figure is much harder to prove than defamation of a private figure. The plaintiff must show that the defendant made the statement with actual malice, knowing that the information was false or recklessly disregarding whether it was wrong. A private figure only needs to show that the defendant was negligent in making the statement.